|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Portable Projection System
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Kraus
Film God
Posts: 4094
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 11-09-2002 09:37 PM
I see no justification for a licensing requirement. Sure, it would be nice if everyone working a booth had met certain skill requirements but I do not believe that to be the purview of government but between the employer, the employees, the union (if any), and, of course, the customers, who will vote with their pocketbooks. Licensing should be limited to matters affecting public, and to a lesser extent, personal safety. With the demise of nitrate film there is no longer a need. Concession workers present a greater potential threat to the public health and safety than do booth workers. Besides, a good portion of crappy presentation and damage to film comes not from lack of knowlege but out of laziness and the desire to take every possible shortcut no matter the effect. There's no way to test for that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-20-2002 03:28 AM
Steve,
The licensing requirement in the early days of booth operation has always been for safety issues, not for presentation skills, although many of the film handling skills and equipment knowledge questions that were on the test are related to a person's knowing enough about the equipment so as to be able to shut down quickly and effectively in case of fire. Practical tests included things like making splices, not because the Bureau of Gas and Electric gave a hoot about an out-of-frame blunder on the screen, but because in the days of nitrate film, a bad splice could cause a break in the projector and the potential for fire.
All that has changed. No more nitrate, no more fire hazard. Not so. Yes, there is no longer the nitrate danger, that doesn't mean film will not burn and today there is a LOT more film in a multiplex booth than there ever was in single screen operations. Before where as many as four prints in a booth at one time would have been considered an unusually large number, and all the reels in cans or in reel cabinets with a regulation that no more than 3 feet of a reel of film could be expose at one time while threading the projector, now you have a single projection booth common to 15, 20, 25 screen that can contain hundreds of thousands of film that is continuously exposed in open air. In many cases, the booths have common air conditioning systems with the theatres. As any fireman will tell you, in a crowded theatre, it is the smell of smoke that will cause panic without the sight of fire. It is still a matter of public safety that in a theatre there be someone in the booth that has at least minimal amount of training and knows the electrical systems, knows the safety codes, knows how to shut down the show in a safe manner so as not to cause panic.
The projection license, at least in NYC, is also a partial electrical license. It gives the holder the ability to install booth equipment and make electrical connections to the mains. He has to have knowledge of electrical codes and practices. This is not the kind of thing that should be left to the market place. At the very least, the license gives the local government a way of keeping an eye on the safety issues in theatres. The license requires the holder to report back to the Bureau any violation of code. In that sense, the projectionist is beholding to the city, not the theatre owner. If he sees a violation, even outside the booth -- a blocked exit door, for example, or any other hazardous situation, he is obligated to report back to the Bureau, this can be under pain of forfeiting his license (and presumably his livelihood -- a good motivation to "do the right thing.").
I failed my first practical because as I was running the film in the test projection booth, the examiner told me that there was a fire in the gate. I pulled the fire shutters, stopped the projector, turned on the house lights, and used the fire extinguisher, then called the theatre manager on the intercom. The examiner then asked, "And what else would you do?" I said I would leave the booth. "And what else?" I thought and thought and then gave up, thinking, "and go get drunk because I know I am missing something on this freakin test." He said, "Sorry, you did not pass."
Any NYC license holders out there know what I missed? Well, I didn't tell him that I should have immediately reported the "incident" to the Department of Gas and Electric. My point here being that the city does have a stake in knowing when serious safety issues arise in public places. The projectionist license gives them at least a modicum of control.
That being said, we have to understand that there are two reason for licensing -- 1) is the public safety issue, which I still believe in the modern multiplexes is reasonable for the city to demand a certian level of skill and 2) simply a monetary one, i.e., collecting money for the city. Unfortunately, today the NYC projectionist license has been removed from a bureau of safety regulation and moved to one which has no other function that to act as a collection agency for the city. Today projectionists are licensed not by the Bureau of Gas and Electric, but the Bureau of Consumer Affairs. If I called up tomorrow and said I had a fire incident in the projection booth, they wouldn't know what a booth was, let alone know what to do about it. They collect licensing fees from thousands of nuisance licenses, none of which have anything to do with safety. So in that sense, yes, THAT kind of projectionist license should be eliminated. But I wouldn't want to see it eliminated if it were back under the auspices of a safety regulatory body, the same as I wouldn't want to see eliminating electricians' or air conditioning engineers' licenses. They do serve as a way of insuring that the applicant has some measure of skill necessary in crafts that pose safety concerns.
Frank
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-21-2002 01:21 PM
Tape doesn't run through a machine that pumps a radiant beam through it that can set it a blaze if it doesn't move fast enough nor are there a dozen platters each holding 10 thousand feet of the stuff, in the TV station, and most importantly, there aren't a couple of thousand people sitting in the TV station.
Then there's the issue of the electrical license. I suppose you could just say that projectionists shouldn't be allowed to make any electrical repairs or do any equipment installs in the booth, but that's not what the exhibitors want....they love the idea that they could get a licensed electrician in the body of a projectionist without having to pay licensed electrician prices.
And lastly, my booth, as do quite a few others in the city, still meet nitrate safety regs (or at least can if I replace the fire traps in the magazines) and as a rep house, we can still run the occasional nitrate print. If I hire a projectionist in such a situation his license tells me he is versed in all the safety issues involved.
Safety licenses are not the evil nemesis you seem to make them out to be. They are put in place, I think rightfully so, where safety issues can be potential hazards to the public. I agree that licensing just as another way for municipalities to impose a tax on working people should be either eliminated or called what it is, a tax arbitrarily targeting certain workers.
Besides, what's the big deal? Why shouldn't a municipality be able to require people who work in areas that involve the public and potential safety issues have basic skills and knowledge in their activity, whatever it might be. We license drivers, don't we?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
test all over again and pay the $200.00![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
$200.00 dollars for a test.
Printer-friendly view of this topic